Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Flow diversion for basilar quadrifurcation aneurysms
  1. Visish M Srinivasan,
  2. Jubran H Jubran,
  3. Henry O Stonnington,
  4. Joshua S Catapano,
  5. Lea Scherschinski,
  6. Benjamin K Hendricks,
  7. Ethan A Winkler,
  8. Robert F Rudy,
  9. Brandon A Nguyen,
  10. Stephen J Dabrowski,
  11. Ashutosh P Jadhav,
  12. Andrew F Ducruet,
  13. Felipe C Albuquerque
  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Felipe C Albuquerque, Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix AZ 85013, Arizona, USA; Felipe.Albuquerque{at}barrowbrainandspine.com

Abstract

Background Flow-diverting devices (FDDs), such as the Pipeline Embolization Device, have been gaining traction for treating challenging posterior circulation aneurysms. Few previous studies have focused on using FDDs to treat aneurysms of the basilar quadrifurcation.

Methods We retrospectively reviewed the use of FDDs to treat patients with basilar quadrifurcation aneurysms. Patients were assessed for aneurysm type, previous aneurysm treatment, technical success, periprocedural complications, and long-term aneurysm occlusion.

Results 34 patients were assessed; aneurysms of the basilar apex (n=23) or superior cerebellar artery (SCA) (n=7), or both (n=1), and posterior cerebral artery (PCA) (n=3). The mean (SD) largest aneurysm dimension was 8.7 (6.1) mm (range 1.9–30.8 mm). 14 aneurysms were previously surgically clipped or endovascularly coiled. All aneurysms had a saccular morphology. Complete or near-complete occlusion was achieved in 30 of 34 patients (88%) at final angiographic follow-up, a mean (SD) of 6.6 (5.4) months (range 0–19 months) postoperatively. No patient experienced postoperative symptomatic occlusions of the SCA or PCA; 4 patients developed asymptomatic posterior communicating artery occlusions; 28 patients (82%) experienced no complications; whereas 3 (9%) experienced major complications and 3 (9%) experienced minor complications; and 1 patient died as a result of subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Conclusion Flow diversion may be a safe and effective option to treat basilar quadrifurcation aneurysms. Previously treated basilar quadrifurcation aneurysms with recurrence or residual lesion may benefit from additional treatment with an FDD. Further prospective studies should be directed toward validating these findings.

  • Aneurysm

Data availability statement

No data are available. There are no additional data to share.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

No data are available. There are no additional data to share.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @visishs, @benkhendricks

  • Contributors JHJ and VMS both equally analyzed data and drafted and wrote the manuscript. HOS, BAN, JSC, SD collected data. BKH, EAW, RFR, APJ provided expert review of the manuscript and helped draft the manuscript. AFD, FCA provided expert review and were the surgeons involved in the cases. FCA is the guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests Dr Ducruet is a consultant for Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, Cerenovus, and Koswire. Drs Ducruet and Albuquerque serve on the editorial board of the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery. Content included in this article was presented as a digital poster at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons Annual Meeting, April 29–May 1, 2022, in Philadelphia, PA.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.